Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wavelets used in image fusion can be categorized into three general classes: orthogonal, biorthogonal, and non‐orthogonal. Although these wavelets share some common properties, each wavelet also has a unique image decomposition and reconstruction characteristic that leads to different fusion results. This paper focuses on the comparison of the image‐fusion methods that utilize the wavelet of the above three general classes, and theoretically analyses the factors that lead to different fusion results. Normally, when a wavelet transformation alone is used for image fusion, the fusion result is not good. However, if a wavelet transform and a traditional fusion method, such as an IHS transform or a PCA transform, are integrated, better fusion results may be achieved. Therefore, this paper also discusses methods to improve wavelet‐based fusion by integrating an IHS or a PCA transform. As the substitution in the IHS transform or the PCA transform is limited to only one component, the integration of the wavelet transform with the IHS or PCA to improve or modify the component, and the use of IHS or PCA transform to fuse the image, can make the fusion process simpler and faster. This integration can also better preserve colour information. IKONOS and QuickBird image data are used to evaluate the seven kinds of wavelet fusion methods (orthogonal wavelet fusion with decimation, orthogonal wavelet fusion without decimation, biorthogonal wavelet fusion with decimation, biorthogonal wavelet fusion without decimation, wavelet fusion based on the ‘à trous’, wavelet and IHS transformation integration, and wavelet and PCA transformation integration). The fusion results are compared graphically, visually, and statistically, and show that wavelet‐integrated methods can improve the fusion result, reduce the ringing or aliasing effects to some extent, and make the whole image smoother. Comparisons of the final results also show that the final result is affected by the type of wavelets (orthogonal, biorthogonal, and non‐orthogonal), decimation or undecimation, and wavelet‐decomposition levels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".